Diamond Jubilee Bollocks

I was going to write a serious piece on Her Maj's Diamond Jubilee. You know the sort of thing: professionally investigative; full of well-researched facts; conclusive arguments and solutions. Then I thought...nah. Ill-informed, judgemental hyperbole is what I do best...

And 600 million inglorious pounds later...

It's not really about the money. Compared to the country's deficit and the crippling debt burden we labour under, a few million quid for the odd lavish party and a one-thousand vessel flotilla closing down London for a day is chicken feed. Sure, queenie is putting her hand her purse for the dinners with all the world's mad despots and imaginary monarchs...but that'll the purse that we filled with our money, then. And the country - well, Londoners anyway - have to pay for the 5,500 police officers and 7,000 security stewards that'll be on duty over the jubilee weekend to make sure that everyone behaves. But no, it isn't really about the money...even though half of the population can't currently afford to eat anything other mechanically reclaimed burger meat while she feasts on swan.

Let's start with the cult of monarchy and its lunatic perpetuation. It is the duty of the press and media broadcasters to be impartial and, largely, they are these days although that has nothing to do with Leveson or the toothless Dacre fiefdom that masquerades as the Press Complaints Commission. Independent, my arse. Hacks are allowed to criticise David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the other bloke, er...what's his name...doesn't matter, each with equivalent gusto. They can be uncommonly rude about George Galloway, Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin, especially. They can also be very impolite about people in business and freely libellous in the extreme about the new whipping boys, the bankers. They can even be just a bit rude about fundamental Islamlists, as long as they have hooks and eye-patches and/or are called Abu. And, of course, they can take the piss out of Anglican bishops and accuse every Roman Catholic priest of kiddie-fiddling. But partial, negative comments about Her Maj are strictly taboo. Why?

To an anti-monarchist republican (like me) this seems like madness. I have tried to put myself in the shoes of the people that are in favour of having an unelected Head of State that is given millions of pounds every year to go on holiday, have banquets and read a little book (written by a twelve-year-old policy wonk) in front of their Lordships and a few MPs to announce what 'her' government will be doing badly or pointlessly over the the coming parliament. It isn't even 'her' government. She doesn't fucking vote! It's our government (well, the 35% of us that cast a ballot, anyway - the rest should be ashamed of themselves). I've tried. Really, I have. But I can't.

I've even tried to consider the specious arguments about the royal family being 'Good for Britain'. The one that is usually trotted out by credulous fools is that the royals - and in particular, the Queen - bring in shit-loads of tourists and their wallets thus boosting invisible earnings for the country. This is mostly utter crap. Sure, there are a few idiots (usually Americans) that believe they are somehow related to the royal family and want to 'come visit'. The rest wish to see the palaces, the jewels, and the pomp. Just like they do in Russia and France; one republic and one totalitarian dictatorship that had the sense to dispense with their royalty years ago. But it doesn't stop the tourists in their hordes queueing for hours to see the Winter and Summer Palaces of St Petersburg or the magnificence of Versailles. If anything, it encourages people to go to see where some privileged, in-bred tossers used to live but now are places that ordinary people can gawk at. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that we guillotine or shoot our royals. No. They could have a modest pension and a council house; possibly even somewhere nice.

Another argument (equally specious but also utterly moronic) for continuing with this farrago is that 'the people' love her (the queen) and the public mood is lifted immeasurably, simply by her sitting in a golden carriage or a big, shiny car and waving at them. Have we lost our minds? And the sycophantic reporting makes me gag, especially when the odious, little turd Witchell, or before him the equally fawning Jennie Bond can find nothing better to toss off about than which shade of lemon her hat is, but not which arsehole was paid £5,000 for making it.

Cheesecake?

Then there's the position many take; telling us that the queen does a 'very good job'. Yeah. This a job that comes with at least six huge houses to live in, a throne, an art collection, some lovely jewels, an income Bob Diamond can only dream of, countless foreign holidays, hundreds of servants and lackeys and, until recently, a personal cruise ship. And if that idiot Gove got his way, she'd get a new one. Is it just me, or does the Education Secretary have the sort face that you'd never tire of smacking? The queen's 'job' is also pretty much unique, in that she can never be sacked (except by revolt - and that's not really getting sacked, more 'overthrown'). The argument is that the queen, as Head of State, is actually a real Head of State. After all, she has the uncommonly difficult role of having to meet with the Prime Minister regularly and 'agree' to his or her mad ideas about governing. What on earth do they talk about?

Cameron (bowing and scraping): "Good morning Ma'am."
Queen (seated on throne): Good morning. Have you come far."
Cameron: "No, Ma'am. Just across London Town."
Queen: "And how are things in my realm?"
Cameron: "Splendid, Ma'am. Couldn't be better."
Queen: Really? I thought one had heard something about a recession and one's subjects having to eat gruel."
Cameron: "Not at all, Ma'am. Everything is wonderful."
Queen: "Excellent. Is there anything else?"
Cameron: Nothing at all, Ma'am, except, and if I may so bold, may I wish you my sincerest felicitations on your diamond jubilee?
Queen: "Very well. You may."
Cameron: "My sincerest felicitations upon your diamond jubilee, your majesty."
Sir Mortimer Fitztightly: "Her Majesty is tired. You may leave now."
Cameron: "Thank you so much, sir.' (Bows, scrapes a bit more and walks backwards to the door). "Your majesty, I am your humblest subject..."(exits)
Queen: "Sir Mortimer, who was that awful little man?"
Fitztightly: "That was David Cameron, ma'am, the Prime Minister."
Queen: "Oh, dear. Can one have a new one? One used to like that splendid lady that used to come and have a chat with one over tea and those frightful Duchy Original biscuits, oh...so many years ago. Can she come back again to see one?"
Fitztightly: "I'm afraid not, ma'am. She went mad."
Queen: "That reminds one. Where's Philip?"

There is a misguided school of thought that the royals are useful in promoting international trade, too. By that, of course, we mean selling arms to despotic regimes that have their own 'royals'. It's almost worth keeping the royal family just for that, then, really...

There are also legal issues. This country has a constitution. On the whole, that's good thing - having a constitution. It's what's in it that's the problem. Constitutionally, the queen is indeed Head of State. Constitutionally, she inherited her position as monarch and when she dies, the whole thing carries on, only next time with a real loony. It is argued that changing the constitution will create so much upheaval that it's simpler, cheaper and therefore more appropriate to let things stay as they are. That's how the House of Lords see it, of course and, sadly, every bloody parliament since Richard Cromwell screwed up the republic in 1659. Twat. The constitutional premise is therefore one of apathy, buoyed by the speciousness referenced earlier in this post.

R Cromwell: Useless Republican

A small segment of the population argue that the queen is 'appointed by god'. All the ridiculously anachronistic bollocks that makes up coronations and enthronements of the monarch refer to this. The small segment (and one that's getting smaller by the minute) is the Church of England and its Bishops, who, by coincidence, are the twenty-six Lords Spiritual that get to sit in the Upper House and have a say in government despite being unelected. Another brilliant reason to retain the monarchy, then... And the loony heir to the throne is maybe not as nuts as I thought. He wants to be not the 'Defender of the Faith', as in the CofE being that faith, but 'Defender of All Faiths', thus prompting a call, perhaps, for the house of Lords to be filled up with Roman Catholic bishops, Chief Rabbis, Ayatollahs and the rest, including Sung Myung Moon and the Buddha, probably.

And now, the country is required to be in rapture over the fact that an elderly woman has been in a cushy job-for-life (to which she was appointed by an imaginary super-being) for sixty years. The coalition thinks it's a great idea to further damage GDP by giving "non-essential" workers an extra day off so they can 'celebrate' the grandness of the occasion, thus providing a boost to morale before we all have to deal with the horror of it all again on the Wednesday. But that's OK, too, because it won't be long before the bloody Olympic Games.

Oh, and by the way, I've had to make all this up because - surprise, surprise - the royal family is exempt from requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Tch! The things you see when you've gone out without your gun again...